20 Reasons Not To Vote

1. If one votes, one participates. If one participates, one condones and endorses the process, and subsequently, what those elected 'representatives' do and say in your name.

2. Electoral promises are meaningless because politicians are able to lie to gain the favor of the electorate, and then do exactly what they want once they have it. Then there is no accountability or recourse, other than waiting another 4 years or so to vote them out and replace them with someone else who will follow the established template and do the exact same thing.

3. The act of voting grants legitimacy to the idea that it's acceptable for the majority/collective to use the coercive arm of the state to impose their will on the minority/individual using force, or threat of force, and for that reason, it is immoral to vote. As such, the only way to truly de-legitimise the system is by not voting. When the people refuse to participate in droves the international community can no longer recognize the results of the election as legitimate. This perceived legitimacy is such a concern for politicians that in some countries it's now a legal requirement to vote (e.g., Australia).

4. A non-voter emerges from the electoral process with a clean conscience because they can legitimately proclaim that what the elected 'representatives' subsequently say and do after they have gained power is not done in their name, not with their permission, and not with their encouragement.

5. To not vote DOES NOT mean one relinquishes the right to then comment on, complain about, or protest the actions of the government, it is completely the other way round. When one votes one effectively makes a contractual agreement (the voter is officially recorded doing so), which hands over the right for someone else to speak and act in their name, and as such, assents to whatever the government does thereafter. A non-voter however, has not done so, and therefore retains the right to complain, object and protest all they want.

6. Participation in the system (i.e., voting) reinforces the idea that people can't live together without violent control.

7. Participation in the system (i.e., voting) implies that the majority knows what's best for everyone.

8. Participation in the system (i.e., voting) implies that the majority knows what's best for the individual.

9. Voting is effectively participating in mob rule, and the mob then enforces it's views on the rest of society with the threat of violence.

10. By voting, an individual literally advocates the use of force against peaceful people.

11. Voting reinforces the idea the 'people' have the power rather than the largely unaccountable bureaucrats who make the rules.

12. Voting is futile because invariably the better financed candidate wins.

13. Statistically, any one vote makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. Thinking that their vote counts tends to give the voter a mistakenly inflated sense of self-worth, and participation in a system creates a passive sense of accomplishment.

14. An individual's ability to make an informed choice is zero if the only information they reference is from the overtly bias main stream media, government news channels (propaganda), politicians and party manifestos (sales pitch), or from an 'enforced' state school education (indoctrination).

15. Voting sends a false signal to the elected politicians that the voter approves of all their policies. Voters therefore encourage them.

16. If an individual has not come to firm conclusion about the election, that individual will do more for their country/community by not voting, rather than making a mistake.

17. If the outcome of a vote is unknown, then voting is tantamount to gambling. If the outcome of a vote is known, then voting is futile.

18. No individual has the authority to make laws their neighbor, or anyone else, must obey. Then how is it morally acceptable for any individual to delegate authority they don't have to someone else, such as a politician?

19. Should people who know more about game shows, sports, reality TV and celebrities, rather than matters of any real importance (economics, political philosophy, history, logic, critical thinking, etc) be in a position to vote and influence the lives of others?

20. Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil.


The 20 reasons not to vote boil down to this:

If you are not a voluntaryist, then by definition you are an involuntaryist, and as such, personally advocate the initiation of force, or threat of force against people who haven't threatened or harmed anyone. Therefore, for every person in the world one of these statements is true:


1) "I advocate a society whereby people are free to voluntarily interact with one another."
2) "I advocate the use of force, or threat of force, against innocent people, in order to make them comply with my opinions and preferences."


If the first statement refers to you, then DON'T VOTE.

 

Unless you are living off the land like Jeremiah Johnson in the wilderness, you are taking part in the benefits provided by government. Government that was voted in by voters.

If you don't use roads, education, money, a water faucet ... if you don't call the police if you're robbed, if you don't need the fire department if your house is on fire ... then perhaps your status as a non-voter has some credibility.

But if you are using those things, don't criticize your fellow citizens who provide them to you by voting in a government.

My two cents ...

 

You can criticize anyone who voted for any type of government service because government services all non-rival, non-excludable goods. They're available to everyone, whether people want them or not, paid for them or not, voted for them or not; not to mention my use of those goods doesn't prevent anyone else from using them.

I can criticize the police force and the military, but the police and military can't protect only people who supports them; those services are available to everyone. This is because national defense is a non-rival, non-excludable service.

So, bad argument.

 

There are no reasons not to vote...

... only excuses.

 

You mean like tribalism? Or maybe straight Darwinism...I screw you before you screw me, the strongest survive? You really need to defind your 'society' otherwise you are drinking Unicorn milk.

No one would agree with #2 which describes a tyrant and not a government.

 

NO!!!! Don't tell them Libbies to VOTE!!! Grannie's gettin her shotgun!!

 

I think it's a great argument.

The reason those services exist is because people want them, and they want to pay for them. They are able to make that happen by voting in people and empowering them to make them happen. Those things don't just magically appear out of thin air.

So if you don't vote, fine. Just realize that you are enjoying the benefits that people who do vote are providing for you. Unless you're living like Jeremiah Johnson, that is.

 

Load of people already don’t vote but if anything that only makes the negative elements of the system worse. Only not voting is no better than only voting. If you really believe there is such a fundamental problem with our socio-political systems, you’d need to actually doing something about it beyond feeling all self-righteous about sitting on your ass on election day.

 

Summarizing the OPer's opinion: "The reasons not to vote are that the election may not turn out how you want it to and the USA sucks."

Oh, and Trump spent FAR less than many other candidates and won, so the OP is false. The OP reminds me of the bad-loser tantrum Jeb Bush is throwing.

 

You'd have a point if these services were non-rival and excludable, but they're not. Even if someone doesn't want these things at all, it doesn't change the fact that these people will have these services because they're non-rival, non-excludable goods. We have these services not because most of us choose to but because the consumption of these services doesn't limit these services for anyone else.

If these government services were excludable, they would only be reserved to the people who pay for them with their tax dollars. Since this isn't the case, someone HAS no choice but to utilize these services because they're non-excludable.

 

I don't think they understand the definition of non-rival and non-excludable even though you clearly defined it for them.

 

The society is adequately defined in the sentence you quoted.

The vast majority agree with #2, and as the article points out by participating in the voting process it is an implicit endorsement of #2.

 

Why would you assume this is the case? That isn't logical. Voting is a non-solution, thus one must turn to other endeavors.

 

I didn’t assume anything, I referred to what you’d need to do to actually have any impact. You raised this thread exclusively on the point of vote or don’t vote. That alone doesn’t necessarily make a huge difference (though it can in some circumstances) but good governance certainly requires people to do lots of other things as well. We can do those things regardless of whether we choose to vote or not in any given election though.

 

One reason to vote, #NeverHillary.

 

I'll vote, but my vote will go to Gary Johnson. It is a show that one person, me, is willing to show my displeasure against the status quo, business as usual, the entrenched bureaucrats and the unelected civil servants who as you accurately stated, make the rules. Its a vote against our monopoly political system. Where both major parties owe their heart and soul to corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyists, special interests, mega money donors than to the nation itself or the American people as a whole.

It is a tick mark against all of the above. Maybe a worthless tick mark in the grand scheme of things, but a tick mark nonetheless. Staying home, not voting, accomplishes nothing. It give the impression you don't care, that you are satisfied with things as they are. Staying home plays right into the Republican and democratic play books. Voters are nothing more than a necessary evil to them anyway. It is the moneyed folks they care about. Neither party is about to bite the hand that feeds them.

My advice, is not to stay home, but to vote for a third party candidate. Make those tick marks rise. Show your dissatisfaction where everyone can see it. Perhaps third party candidates can get 10% of the vote instead of their normal one or two percent. Maybe we can up it to more 15%. Have the airways filled after November with how dissatisfied most people are with the choices given and the way the two parties govern. Change will not come by doing nothing.

 

Here's mine:

My preferred candidate has exactly zero chance of winning my state so I don't see the point in putting in the effort.

 

Offset by #NeverTrump. There is no difference.

 

Being a civil libertarian, I followed this to its logical end. What if the libertarian party actually gained support and became a viable mainstream party? My conclusion was nothing would change, as that power is now in their hands. The would be overcome with the same changes that instilled corruption within our two current mainstream parties. This is the only logical course- power must be diluted and not focused.

 

(emphasis added by me)

No, I didn't raise the thread to exclusively to the point of vote or don't vote. That is your assumption. All I stated was the not voting is better that voting. Then I made the case. I said nothing about it being exclusive.

 

If you don't vote, you don't belong on this forum.

If you don't have the integrity to vote, the only time in which your voice actually counts, don't bother offering your opinions here. If you choose to shirk your duty as a citizen, there's no reason for anyone to listen to you complain.

 

This thread is exclusively about the “vote or don’t vote” question. You could well have other things in this area you’d promote but you’ve chosen not to mention any of them here.

 

While I'm going to vote in this general election, I'm definitely reminded of a George Carlin stand-up where he says he doesn't vote and for most of the same reasons as listed in the OP.

Oddly enough, when I was younger I always thought people who don't vote should never be allowed to speak on politics. Now I'm realizing I'm sympathetic to them since, given the 2 choices, sitting out on voting may not be the worst thing.

 

Would you please point me to the rules on this forum that states this please?

Also, I do not forfeit my right to comment or complain in any sense, let alone this forum, as stated in #5.

- - - Updated - - -

No, this thread is about why not voting is better than voting. Nothing is stated nor implied those are the only two things that exclusively can be done on election day.

 

Voluntaryist = libertarian, an idea that can only work in a homogenous society that has easily defended borders.

Clone yourself.